F 
786 


REMARKS 


<Q  C-vwvt 

HON,  MR.  WELLED,  OF  CALIFORNIA, 


THE  MEXICAN  BOUNDARY  COMMISSION— THE  RIVER  AND 

HARBOR   BILL— THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW, 

AND  CALIFORNIA  LAND  TITLES. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


MEXTCAN  BOUNDARY  COMMISSION. 
FRIDAY,  August  27,  1852. 

The  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriation  bill 
being  under  consideration — 

Mr.  MASON  said:  Mr.  President,  I  offer  a  fur- 
ther amendment  to  the  bill,  not,  however,  by 
instruction  of  the  committee,  but  of  my  own  mo- 
tion. There  is  a  provision  in  the  bill  "  for  running 
and  marking  the  boundary  line  between  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  Mexibo  under  the  treaty  of  Guada- 
lupe  Hidalgo,  $120,000.  I  propose  to  amend  this 
clause  by  adding  to  it: 

Provided,  That  no  part  of  this  appropriation  shall  be  used 
or  expended  until  it  shall  be  made  satisfactorily  to  appear 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that  the  southern 
boundary  of  New  Mexico  is  not  established  by  the  Commis- 
sioner and  Surveyor  of  the  United  States  further  north  of 
the  town  called  Paso  than  the  same  is  laid  down  on  Distur- 
nell's  map  which  is  attached  to  the  treaty. 

Mr.  WELLER  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT,  I  regret  very  much  that  I  am 
compelled  to  say  anything  to-night  on  this  sub- 
ject; but  I  am,  from  convictions  of  duty,  driven 
to  the  necessity  of  moving  to  strike  out  this  ap- 
propriation from  the  bill.  There  are  many  rea- 
sons which  I  could  assign,  if  it  were  necessary, 
that  the  public  interests  demand  that  no  further  ap- 
propriation should  now  be  made  for  this  Commis- 
sion. On  the  22d  day  of  March  last,  more  than 
five  months  ago,  I  submitted  a  resolution  to 
the  Senate,  (which  was  adopted,)  calling  upon  the 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  information  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  appropriations  heretofore 
made  had  been  expended.  There  have  been  ap- 

gropriations  made  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
tates  for  the  years  1850, 1851,  and  1852—  (I  speak 
of  the  time  which  has  elapsed  since  I  headed  that 
Commission) — amounting  tothe sum  of  $365,000. 
Three  hundred  and  sixty-five  thousand  dollars  of 
the  public  money  have  been  appropriated  and  ex- 
pended. Early  in  the  month  of  March  last,  I  was 
anxious  to  ascertain  the  manner  in  which  this 
money  had  been  expended,  in  order  that,  if  a  call 
were  made  for  further  appropriations,  we  might  be 
enabled  to  understand  the  propriety  of  making 
them.  More  than  five  months,  as  I  have  said, 
have  elapsed  since  that  resolution  was  adopted  and 
sent  to  the  Department  of  the  Interior;  and  up  to 
this  hour  the  Secretary  has  refused  to  let  this 
branch  of  the  Government  know  how  that  money 


has  been  expended  !  He  seems  to  have  assumed 
the  ground,  that  under  his  Administration  the  peo- 
ple have  no  right  to  know  what  disposition  has 
been  made  of  their  money.  If  this  be  the  policy 
of  the  Whig  party,  I  trust  the  people  will  see  the 
necessity  of  ejecting  them  from  power. 

Mr.  PEARCE.  I  would  explain  to  the  Senator 
that  it  has  been  communicated  to  me  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Interior  —  in  reply  to  an  inquiry  which 
I  addressed  to  him  recently,  after  a  conversation 
which  I  had  with  the  Senator  —  that  those  accounts 
were  not  kept  in  the  Department  of  the  Interior, 
but  that  he  had  sent  a  direction  ,  or  a  request,  to  the 
office  in  which  they  were  kept,  that  copies  of  them 
should  be  made  out  and  sent  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  WELLER.  Well,  sir,  it  is  a  matter  of 
very  little  importance  to  me  whether  it  be  the  fault 
of  the  Secretary  or  of  the  auditing  officer  of  the 
Department.  I  am  complaining  of  this  Adminis- 
tration and  of  the  Whig  party,  and  they  may 
divide  the  responsibility  if  they  choose,  between 
them. 

When  I  was  Boundary  Commissioner,  I  was 
charged  with  "  squandering  the  public  money." 
Such  an  allegation  was  made  by  a  Senator  now 
on  this  floor,  [Mr.  SMITH,]  who  has  not  attempted 
to  prove  it,  although  I  have  challenged  him  to  do 
so.  A  resolution  was  offered,  calling  for  my  ac- 
counts and  all  of  my  vouchers,  in  order  that  I 
might  be  convicted  —  as  the  accounts  were  then  in- 
complete —  of  squandering  the  public  money.  How 
long  do  you  think  it  took  a  Whig  Administration 
then  to  answer  that  resolution  ?  The  record  in  my 
hand  shows  that  the  resolution  was  offered  upon 
the  19th  day  of  February,  1  850,  and  upon  the  27th 
day  of  the  same  month  it  was  answered,  trans- 
mitting the  accounts,  &c.  It  took  precisely  eight 
days  to  answer  a  call  for  all  my  vouchers  and  ac- 
counts. An  answer  was  then  promptly  trans- 
mitted by  the  Department,  showing  a  disbursement 
of  nearly  $50,000.  But  here,  now  when  I  stand 
upon  this  floor  and  ask  the  Administration  to  give 
me  an  account  of  the  manner  in  which  my  illus- 
trious successor  has 
five  months  have  ela 

\  the  information  !  This  unaccountable  delay  fully 
justifies  the  inference  that  the  accounts  would  not 
bear  public  scrutiny.  Do  you  call  this  honest 
and  fair?  Is  this  even-handed  justice?  Do  the 
interests  of  the  Whig  party  demand  a  suppression 
i  of  the  information  called  for  ? 


o  e  manner  n  wc  my  us- 
has expended  the  public  moneys, 
e  elapsed  and  they  dare  not  give  me 
!  This  unaccountable  dela  full 


W  4- 


The  Senate  will  perceive  that  with  this  Adminis- 
tration, there  is  a  very  marked  difference  between  a 
Democratic  officer  and  a  Whig  officer !  When 
they  supposed  that  the  production  of  those  ac- 
counts of  mine  would  enable  them  to  sustain  their 
charge  against  me  of  squandering  the  public  money, 
and  justify  them  in  publishing  me  to  the  world  as 
a  "  defaulter,"  those  accounts  were  promptly  sent 
here  showing,  as  I  have  said,  an  expenditure  of 
$50,000.  But  after  all  their  charges  of  "  extrava- 
gance" and  "defalcation,"  here  and  elsewhere, 
they  were  compelled  to  settle  up  my  accounts  and 
pay  over  a  balance  of  some  $5,000  which  they 
owed  me ! 

But  here  has  been  an  expenditure  of  $365,000, 
and  there  is  not  a  Senator  on  this  floor  who  is  per- 
mitted to  know  how  one  dollar  of  that  money  has 
been  expended,  and  still  they  ask  us  now  for 
$120,000  more  to  prosecute  this  work  !  I  must 
be  satisfied  that  the  amount  heretofore  appropri- 
ated has  been  honestly  expended  before  I  will  con- 
sent to  give  you  any  more. 

This  officer  was  instructed  to  return  his  vouchers 
quarterly.  Is  there  any  difficulty  in  showing  us 
these  accounts,  if  all  is  honest  and  fair?  How 
long  will  it  take  the  accounting  officer  to  make  out 
the  returns,  and  transmit  them  to  the  Senate?  If 
they  cannot  transmit  all,  why  not  send  us  his  set- 
tlements for  some  of  the  quarters  of  the  past  two 
years  ?  If  they  cannot  account  for  the  whole  ap- 
propriation, why  not  show  us  how  some  portion 
of  it  has  been  expended?  If  they  cannot  do 
either,  why  not  honestly  avow  it?  If  the  charges 
which  your  Whig  Administration  falsely  made 
against  me,  are  true  as  to  my  successor,  depend 
upon  it  the  day  of  exposure  will  come.  And  yet, 
whilst  we  are  kept  in  the  most  profound  ignorance, 
we  are  called  upon  to  appropriate  $120,000,  which, 
together  with  appropriations  unaccounted  for,  will 
make  nearly  a  half  million  of  dollars  !  To  this 
fact  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  and 
the  country.  It  may  enable  the  people  to  see  how 
public  affairs  are  managed  by  those  now  in  power. 
It  may  seem  to  enlighten  them  as  to  their  duty  in 
the  coming  contest. 

There  is  another  thing  connected  with  this  mat- 
ter to  which  I  desire  to  allude.  I  found  very 
recently,  for  the  first  time,  that  the  Mexican  Min- 
ister in  this  city  had  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Sec- 
retary of  State,  under  date  of  April  20,  1850,  in 
which  he  complained  of  the  delay  of  the  American 
Commission  in  the  prosecution  of  that  work.  I 
will  read  you  a  short  extract  from  that  letter: 

"From  the  information  and  data  which  the  Government 
of  the  undersigned  has  collected  together,  it  must  be  con- 
fessed that  if  the  task  of  defining  the  boundary  line  has  been 
suspended  and  postponed  until  the  month  of  November  of 
the  present  year,  it  has  resulted  entirely  from  the  fact  that 
the  Commissioners  of  the  United  States  have  frequently 
been  absent  in  California,  and  that  latterly  the  said  Com- 
missioners, with  some  exceptions,  have  not  participated  in 
the  operations  of  settling  the  boundary.  It  was  these  same 
Commissioners  of  the  United  States  who  proposed  as  the 
only  means  by  which  these  important  labors  could  be  con- 
tinued, that  the  prosecution  of  the  same  should  be  delayed 
until  next  November.  General  Garcia  Cond£,  chief  of  the 
Mexican  Commissioners,  in  agreeing  to  this  proposition, 
only  yielded  to  the  force  of  necessity,  and  although  this 
chief  found  himself  encompassed  with  difficulty  to  continue 
in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  yet.  he  was  determined,  as  he 
intimated  it  to  the  United  States  Commissioners,  not  to 
interrupt  the  operation,  the  management  of  which  had  been 
intrusted  to  him  by  his  Government." 

i    Now,  sir,  I  am  not  aware  that  the  Secretary  of 


State  ever  responded  to  this  allegation.  He  was 
quite  willing  that  I  should  be  censured.  Here 
was  a  grave  complaint — a  complaint  preferred  by 
the  representative  of  a  forefgn  Government,  that 
the  Commissioner  (he  seems  to  have  forgotten 
that  there  was  but  one)  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States  was  delaying  the  prosecution  of  that  im- 
portant work.  To  this  letter,  1  say,  the  Secretary 
of  State  never  made  any  response,  although  the 
Department  of  the  Interior  had  then  in  its  posses- 
sion abundant  testimony  to  show  that  it  was  ut- 
terly false  and  unfounded.  They  seemed  to  be 
quite  willing  that  I  should  be  convicted  of  delaying 
the  work. 

Mr.  CLARKE.  Will  the  honorable  Senator  tell 
me  what  Commissioner  is  alluded  to  in  the  letter? 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  am  the  man.  I  am  the 
Commissioner  alluded  to.  By  the  way,  however, 
there  is  another  letter  from  the  Mexican  Minister 
which  I  might  read,  complaining  of  a  much  more 
grievous  offense  on  the  part  of  rny  illustrious  suc- 
cessor, whom  my  friend  has  so  often  defended. 
In  that  letter  the  Mexican  Minister  has  complained 
that  he  (the  American  Commissioner)  has  organ- 
ized parties  for  the  purpose  of  exploring  the  coun- 
try, examining  its  minerals,  and  hunting  up  all 
the  bugs  in  the  country  !  I  believe  he  has  parties 
in  the  field  examining  the  geology  and  mineralogy 
of  that  country,  and  to  this  I  presume  the  Mex- 
ican Minister  alludes.  The  appropriations  have 
been  made  for  the  sole  purpose  of  running  and 
marking  the  boundary  line  between  the  two  Re- 
publics, and  it  would,  perhaps,  be  somewhat  diffi- 
cult to  justify  the  Commissioner  in  organizing 
these  parties.  If  the  accounts  had  been  sent  in 
under  the  call  of  the  Senate  we  might  have  been 
enabled  to  ascertain  how  much  money  has  been 
expended  in  this  way. 

But  I  was  speaking  of  the  letter  complaining  of 
my  delay.  The  record  then  in  the  Department 
of  the  Interior  showed  that,  so  far  from  delaying 
the  prosecution  of  the  work,  the  delay  had  been 
the  fault  of  the  other  side.  I  reached  San  Diego, 
the  point  fixed  upon  by  the  terms  of  the  treaty, 
on  the  31st  of  May, — one  day  after  the  time  agreed 
upon, — and  the  Mexican  Commissioner  and  his 
party  did  not  arrive  until  the  third  day  of  July; 
and  the  Joint  Commission  was  organized  on  the 
6th.  1  was,  therefore,  compelled  to  remain  five 
weeks  after  the  time  fixed  upon  for  the  meeting, 
wholly  inactive,  because  of  the  failure  of  the  Mexi- 
can Commissioner  to  meet  me.  As  I  was  fully 
aware  of  the  sensitiveness  of  the  Mexican  nation, 
I  would  not  suffer  my  party  to  make  any  move- 
ments whatever  in  executing  the  work,  until  the 
representative  of  that  Government  arrived.  I  did 
not  intend  to  give  them  the  slightest  pretext  for  com- 
plaint. Of  these  facts  the  Department  had  official 
knowledge,  at  the  time  the  complaints  were  made. 

But  there  is  another  point  in  this  letter  of  the 
Mexican  Minister,  to  which  I  invoke  the  attention 
of  the  Senate.  He  says  that  it  was  the  fault  of 
the  American  Commissioner  that  the  Commission 
was  adjourned  in  February  to  meet  at  El  Paso  on 
the  Ist'of  November  following.  This  is  wholly 
unfounded,  as  I  can  readily  show.  In  a  letter 
addressed  by  me  to  the  Department,  under  date  of 
February  3,  1850,  (which  I  find  in  the  printed 
document  before  me,)  and  which  was  on  file  at 
the  time  this  complaint  was  made,  I  used  the  fol- 
lowing language: 


3 


"The  Joint  Commission  to  run  and  mark  the  boundary 
between  the  United  States  and  the  territories  of  Mexico, 
have  agreed  to  adjourn  to  meet  again  at  Kl  Paso  in  the  State 
of  Chihuahua,  on  the  first  Monday  in  November  next.  I 
desired  that  the  meeting  should  take  -place  at  an  earlier  day; 
but  as  it  is  understood  that  during  the  rainy  season  in  New 
Mexico— (July,  August,  and  September,)— no  successful 
operations  could  he  carried  on  in  the  field,  nothing  perhaps 
would  be  lost  by  the  delay." 

Now,  sir,  there  was  the  distinct  declaration 
made  in  that  letter  which  was  on  file  in  the  De- 
partment at  the  time,  that  I  had  desired  that  an 
earlier  day  should  be  fixed  upon  for  the  meeting 
of  the  Joint  Commission.  Such  was  the  fact.  In 
fixing  upon  the  time  for  adjournment,  I  proposed 
July.  General  Garcia  Conde  insisted  on  Novem- 
ber, as  it  was  impossible  to  carry  on  field  opera- 
tions during  the  summer  months;  and  I  confess 
that  I  was  therefore  struck  with  surprise,  that 
the  Mexican  Minister  should  have  addressed  a 
letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  complaining  of  my 
delay !  The  journal  of  the  Joint  Commission 
will  explain  the  whole  matter.  It  reads  thus — 

"It  was  determined,  as  nothing  remains  to  be  done  on 
this  side  of  the  line,  except  that  which  has  already  been 
provided  for,  and  as  it  is  impracticable,  in  the  present  con- 
dition of  California,  to  advance  from  this  direction  beyond 
the  mouth  of  the  Gila,  and  towards  the  frontier  of  New 
Mexico,  that  the  Commission  should  adjourn  to  meet  at  El 
Paso,  in  the  State  of  Chihuahua,  on  the  first  Monday  of 
November  next." — Extract  from  Journal,  15th  Feb.,  1850. 

It  is  true  that  my  drafts  had  been  protested,  the 
appropriation  exhausted,  and  no  means  whatever 
left  to  prosecute  the  work;  still  I  did  not  choose 
to  let  the  Mexican  Commissioner  know  my  real 
situation.  I  did  not  choose  that  he  should  know 
of  the  infamous  course  pursued  by  the  party  in 
power  towards  me.  I  did  not  choose  that  he 
should  know  that  my  drafts,  drawn  in  conformity 
with  instructions,  and  within  the  appropriation, 
had  been  protested,  and  that  my  party  was  suffer- 
ing for  their  pay.  Hence  it  was,  as  the  journal 
shows,  it  was  mutually  agreed  to  adjourn,  and  for 
the  reasons  stated  in  the  extract  which  I  have  just 
read.  I  had  too  much  pride  as  an  American  to 
confess  my  inability,  for  want  of  funds,  to  go  on 
with  the  work. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Mr.  President,  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Finance  called  the  Senator  from 
Rhode  Island  to  order,  because  he  was  speaking 
of  a  subject  not  connected  with  the  amendment. 

Mr.  WELLER.  My  proposition  is  to  strike 
out  the  appropriation  for  the  boundary,  and  that 
brings  up  the  whole  question. 

Mr.  PRATT.  I  think  the  honorable  Senator 
is  out  of  order.  I  think  the  rules  of  the  Senate 
ought  to  be  applied  to  one  side  of  the  Chamber  as 
well  as  the  other. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER,  (Mr.  BRIGHT 
in  the  chair.)  It  is  the  impression  of  the  Chair 
that  the  debate  has  taken  a  very  wide  range;  but 
the  Senate  must  judge  whether  or  not  the  Senator 
from  California  is  in  order. 

Mr.  PRATT.  1  think  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Chair  to  judge. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Then  the 
Chair  feels  constrained  to  say  that  the  whole  de- 
bate has  gone  beyond  the  bounds  of  order. 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  am  compelled  to  submit  to 
the  decision  of  the  Chair,  of  course;  but  I  think 
it  is  very  remarkable  that  I  should  not  be  allowed 
to  proceed.  I  have  shown,  however,  by  the  rec- 
ord, that  the  ^charge  of  the  Mexican  Minister 


against  me  is  wholly  unfounded.  There  were 
many  things  introduced  by  the  Senator  from  Ma- 
ryland [Mr.  PEARCE]  connected  with  this  Admin- 
istration so  far  as  this  boundary  survey  is  con- 
cerned, to  which  I  desire  to  refer. 

Mr.  PRATT.     Mr.  President 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  inter- 
rupted. 

Mr.  PRATT.  1  choose  to  interrupt  the  Sena- 
tor. I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  If  the  decision 
of  the  Chair  is  to  be  conformed  to,  the  Senator 
Tom  California  must  conform  to  it  as  well  as  the 
rest  of  us.  I  do  not  see  why  he  should  say  to  me 
that  he  did  not  choose  to  be  interrupted  when  my 
object  must  be  evident  to  everybody.  I  listen  to 
the  Senator  with  as  much  pleasure  as  to  any  one, 
Dut  I  think  that  at  this  time  of  the  night,  when  it 
s  near  eleven  o'clock,  it  is  of  no  use  to  be  going 
into  these  questions.  I  listened  to  the  gentleman 
attentively  for  four  hours  in  defending  himself, 
and  I  must  say  that  he  did  defend  himself  very 
successfully  against  the  charges  which  had  been 
brought  against  him.  But  I  do  not  want  a  rep- 
etition of  these  matters  to-night,  at  this  late 
hour. 

Mr.  WELLER.  The  gentleman  has  exagger- 
ated the  length  of  time  which  it  took  me  to  de- 
fend myself.  I  believe  I  never  spoke  four  hours 
in  my  life  at  one  time;  and  I  am  sure  I  never  oc- 
cupied more  than  two  hours  in  addressing  the 
Senate.  Besides,  I  am  not  responding  to  the 
charges  to  which  I  then  replied. 

Mr.  PRATT.  Then  I  made  a  small  mistake 
as  to  time;  that  is  all. 

Mr.  WELLER.  I  ask  no  exemption  from  the 
rules  by  which  other  Senators  are  governed,  and 
,vill  put  myself  in  order  by  speaking  to  the  point 
that  is  raised  by  the  amendment.  If  I  were  to 
attempt  to  discuss  the  questions  presented  hereby 
the  amendment  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Vir- 
ginia, I  should  occupy  much  more  time  than  I 
would  have  occupied  in  explaining  a  matter  some- 
what personal  to  myself.  It  is  not  often  that  Sen- 
ators are  interrupted  here,  when  they  are  speak- 
ing of  matters  in  which  their  own  honor  or  their 
own  reputation  is  involved. 

I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two  to  the  Senator  from 
Maryland  who  sits  furthest  from  me,  [Mr. 
PEARCE.]  I  agree  with  him  that  there  is  a  distinction 
between  the  Commissioner  and  the  Surveyor,  but 
I  should  never  have  undertaken,  as  Commissioner 
on  that  boundary,  to  have  determined  any  point 
on  that  line  without  consulting  with  the  Surveyor. 
His  advice  would  have  been  implicitly  relied  upon, 
unless  it  was  plainly  and  palpably  wrong.  The 
instructions  to  which  the  Senator  referred,  places 
the  Commissioner  at  the  head,  and  thus  makes  a 
distinct  difference  between  the  two  officers.  Under 
date  of  January  24,  1849,  (the  first  instructions,) 
you  will  find  that  in  organizing  the  Commission, 
Secretary  Buchanan  says: 

"You  are  referred  for  any  information  which  you  may 
deem  necessary,  to  Andrew  B.  Gray,  Esq.,  who  has  been 
appointed  Surveyor  under  the  treaty." 

It  certainly  was  the  intention  of  the  Department 
to  draw  a  distinction  between  the  power  of  the 
Commissioner  and  that  of  the  Surveyor.  I  con- 
sidered myself  as  the  head  of  the  Commission — 
no  doubt  about  that.  I  held  myself  responsible 
for  the  movements  of  all  the  parties  who  went  out 
into  the  field;  but  I  relied  implicitly  on  the  judg- 


4 


merit  of  the  Surveyor  for  the  determination  of  any 
point  upon  the  face  of  the  earth  in  the  running  of 
the  boundary.  So  I  relied  implicitly  upon  the 
chief  astronomer  in  determining  the  geographical 
position  of  any  point  desired.  The  one  had  charge 
of  the  linear  surveys— the  other  of  the  astro- 
nomical lines. 

I  have  perhaps  detained  the  Senate  too  long.  I 
regret  very  much  that  I  have  been  compelled  to 
inflict  upon  my  friend  from  Maryland  [Mr. 
PRATT]  the  remarks  which  I  have  made.  I  con- 
sidered it  necessary,  and  that  is  reason  enough  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  am  sure  that  when  he 
gets  up  in  the  Senate  to  speak  of  a  matter  in 
which  his  own  reputation  is  involved,  or  where  he 
has  been  grossly  misrepresented  at  the  bar  of  pub- 
lic opinion,  1  shall  interpose  no  objection  to  his 
proceeding.  In  this  respect  I  will  return  good  for 
evil. 

THE  FUGITIVE  SLAVE  LAW. 

THURSDAY,  August  26,  1852. 
Mr.  SUMNER  submitted   the  following  amend- 
ment to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriation 
Bill: 

Provided,  That  no  such  allowance  shall  be  authorized 
for  expense  incurred  in  executing  the  act  of  September  18, 
1850,  for  the  surrender  of  fugitives  from  service  or  labor, 
which  said  act  is  hereby  repealed. 

Mr.  WELLER.  Mr.  President,  I  certainly  do 
not  desire  to  weary  the  Senate,  at  this  late  hour, 
by  attempting  to  discuss  the  question  which  has 
been  obtruded  upon  it  to  day.  But  I  may  be 
allowed  briefly  to  express  my  opinion,  as  I  am 
now,  for  the  first  time,  called  on  to  vote  upon  it  in 
the  Senate. 

I  will  say,  sir,  at  the  outset,  that  this  is  the  first 
time  in  the  course  of  my  life  that  I  have  listened 
to  the  whole  of  an  Abolition  speech.  I  did  not 
know  that  it  was  possible  that  I  could  endure  a 
speech  for  over  three  hours  upon  the  subject  of 
the  abolition  of  slavery.  But  this  oration  of  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  SUMNER,]  to- 
day, has  been  so  handsomely  embellished  with  poe- 
try, both  Latin  and  English,  so  full  of  classical  allu- 
sions and  rhetorical  flourishes,  as  to  make  it  much 
more  palatable  than  I  supposed  it  could  have  been 
made.  I  do  not  see  what  object  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  could  have  had  in  view  unless  it  was 
to  excite  in  the  free  States  of  this  Union  a  forcible 
resistance  to  the  enactment  of  the  last  Congress 
known  as  "  the  fugitive  slave  law. "  In  the  exer- 
cise of  that  power  which  is  vested  in  you  under 
the  Constitution,  you  have  attempted  to  give  se- 
curity to  one  of  the  institutions  that  exist  in  a  por- 
tion of  the  States  of  this  Confederacy.  Does  any 
man  suppose  that  this  Union  can  be  maintained 
unless  every  section  of  it  is  secured  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  its  constitutional  rights  ?  Can  the  Union 
be  maintained  if  one  portion  of  the  Confederacy 
is  permitted  to  trample  upon  the  rights  of  another  ? 
I  apprehend  it  is  too  late  in  the  day  to  discuss 
the  constitutionality  of  the  fugitive  law.  The 
power  of  Congress  to  legislate  on  the  subject  is, 
in  my  opinion,  unquestionable.  The  former  law 
of  1793,  containing  provisions  similar  to  those 
found  in  this  act,  was  passed  by  the  fathers  of  the 
Republic,  who  understood,  perhaps,  the  Consti- 
tution quite  as  well  as  the  Senator  from  Massa- 
chusetts. 


Sir,  I  look  to  no  "  higher  law"  than  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  in  ascertaining  the 
political  rights  of  the  members  of  this  Confedera- 
cy. I  find  that  here  is  an  institution  fastened  upon 
this  country,  recognized  by  the  Constitution,  and 
I  am  willing  to  throw  around  it  all  the  guarantees 
necessary  to  give  it  protection.  Now  that  Con- 
gress, in  the  exercise  of  the  power  conferred  by 
the  Constitution,  have  legislated,  and  the  public 
mind  has  become  settled  down,  and  there  is  a 
peaceable  and  quiet  execution  of  the  law  in  almost 
every  section  of  the  Union,  the  Senator  from 
Massachusetts,  by  an  inflammatory  speech,  indi- 
rectly, at  least,  counsels  forcible  resistance.  Why 
this  attempt  to  show  the  resemblance  between  the 
fugitive  slave  law  and  the  stamp  act,  which  our 
revolutionary  fathers  resisted?  The  stamp  act 
was  resisted  by  revolution,  by  bloodshed. 

Mr.  SUMNER.  The  stamp  act  was  not  re- 
sisted forcibly. 

Mr.  WELLER.  It  was  one  of  the  acts  which 
brought  about  the  Revolution,  which  did  result  in 
bloodshed.  It  was  one  of  the  acts  which  our 
fathers  refused  to  execute.  And  is  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  prepared  for  this  ?  Does  he 
counsel  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  as  he  has 
to-day,  to  resist  the  execution  of  the  law?  Doea 
he  not  know  that,  if  his  counsel  is  taken,  blood- 
shed is  inevitable?  Sir,  I  would  rather  be  the 
lowest  and  humblest  slave  in  all  the  land,  than  to 
have  the  blood  of  murdered  men  upon  my  hands. 
If  the  constituents  of  the  Senator  from  Massachu- 
setts follow  his  direction,  if  they  obey  his  counsels, 
murder,  I  repeat,  is  inevitable;  and  upon  your 
hands,  sir,  ay,  upon  your  hands,  [addressing 
Mr.  SUMNER,]  must  rest  the  blood  of  those  mur- 
dered men.  Are  you  prepared  for  that?  Would 
your  conscience  sustain  you  in  this?  This  forci- 
ble resistance  is  not  only  calculated  to  strike  at 
the  very  foundation  of  our  republican  institutions 
by  dissolving  the  Union,  but  to  bring  upon  the 
head  of  the  learned  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
the  blood  of  murdered  men.  He  who  counsels 
murder  is  himself  a  murderer !  Does  he  think 
that  any  officer,  who  is  charged  with  the  execution 
of  the  law  of  the  land,  will  not  execute  it?  Does 
he  not  know  that  force  will  be  met  by  force  ?  Does 
he  approve  of  the  murders  at  Christiana?  Would 
a  repetition  of  that  horrible  tragedy  gratify  his 
taste  ? 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  has  denounced 
the  slave-hunter  as  if  he  were  a  monster  of  most 
hideous  mien  !  Who  is  the  "  slave-hunter?"  A 
man  who  resides  in  one  of  the  States  of  this 
Union,  in  the  possession  of  certain  property — 
property  around  which  the  guarantees  of  legisla- 
tion have  been  thrown.  That  property  escapes 
into  a  free  State,  and  the  owner  pursues  it.  He 
goes,  then,  under  the  law  of  Congress,  for  the 
purpose  of  recovering  that  which  is  regarded  as 
property;  and  the  Senator  counsels  the  good  peo- 
ple of  Massachusetts  to  regard  that  law  as  similar 
to  the  stamp  act,  and  to  resort  to  revolution  in 
order  to  resist  it !  Does  the  Senator  fully  compre- 
hend and  properly  appreciate  the  responsibility 
resting  upon  him  ? 

Mr.  SUMNER.  Allow  me  to  correct  the  Sen- 
ator. I  run  a  parallel  between  the  slave  act  and 
the  stamp  act;  and  in  doing  that  I  showed  his- 
torically how  our  fathers  opposed  the  stamp  act, 
and  my  language  was  precisely  this:  That  they 


rallied  the  country  in  peaceful  phalanx  against  the 
execution  of  the  act;  that,  within  the  bounds  of  the 
law  and  the  Constitution,  to  that  object  they  ded- 
icated the  patriot  energies  of  the  land.  Such  was 
the  language  I  employed,  as  near  as  I  can  recol- 
lect; and  let  me  say,  that  not  one  word  has  fallen 
from  my  lips  to-day,  suggesting,  in  any  way,  a 
resort  to  force. 

Mr.  WELLER.  Then  I  entirely  misunder- 
stood the  character  of  his  speech,  and  the  whole 
tenor  of  his  oration. 

Mr.  SUMNER.    Most  certainly  you  did. 

Mr.  WELLER.  Then  I  must  plead  guilty  to 
the  humiliating  charge  of  not  being  able  to  com- 
prehend the  English  language.  My  friend  from 
North  Carolina  [Mr.  BADGER]  read  extracts  from 
a  speech  of  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  de- 
livered before  he  came  here,  in  which,  while  he 
seems  to  have  said  ironically,  "  I  do  not  counsel 
you  to  resistance,"  uses  language  calculated  to 
lead  directly  to  the  forcible  resistance  of  the  law. 
If  that  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  his  speech  to- 
day; if  any  other  construction  can  be  fairly  placed 
upon  it,  then  I  am  unable  to  understand  the  force 
of  English  words.  If,  as  he  affirms,  this  act  of 
Congress  is  a  violation  of  the  law  of  God,  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  a  "  wicked,  in- 
famous, devilish  law,  abhorrent  to  every  principle 
of  religion  and  morality,"  then  a  forcible  resist- 
ance would  be  justifiable. 

So  that  the  Senator  cannot  escape  from  the 
conclusion.  But,  Mr.  President,  I  hold  that  it  is 
not  only  your  duty  to  throw  around  this  institu- 
tion of  slavery  all  the  guarantees  which  legislation 
demands,  in  accordance  with  the  power  given  by 
the  Constitution,  but  you  are  bound  as  good  citi- 
zens to  avoid  all  agitation  of  that  question  in  the 
free  States.  You  are  bound  to  prevent  as  far  as 
possible  any  state  of  feeling  from  being  engendered 
calculated  to  prevent  a  just  and  fair  execution  of 
the  law.  You  are  under  a  solemn  obligation  as 
citizens  of  the  Republic  to  abstain  from  pursuing 
any  course  in  the  free  States  which  is  calculated 
to  defeat  the  recovery  of  the  property  which  may 
escape  from  the  owner.  You  do  not  legislate 
upon  the  subject,  it  is  true.  You  pass  no  law  in 
Massachusetts  prohibiting  the  slave-owner  from 
going  there  in  pursuit  of  his  property — and  why? 
Because  you  know  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  would  declare  that  all  that  sort  of 
legislation  was  unconstitutional  and  void.  But 
you  do  more;  you  manufacture  by  the  sort  of 
speeches  we  have  heard  here  to-day,  a  state  of 
public  feeling  which  more  effectually  shuts  out  the 
slaveholder  than  any  legislation  you  could  adopt. 
Is  that  good  faith  amongst  men  and  amongst  States, 
all  confederated  together  in  one  common  Union  ? 
Does  not  common  honesty  require  that  we  shall 
pursue  that  course  toward  each  other  which  is 
calculated  to  preserve  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the 
whole? 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss 
this  subject;  I  only  rose  to  express  briefly  my 
opinions,  and  to  give  utterance  to  the  feelings  of 
my  heart.  Perhaps  it  was  not  necessary  that  I 
should  have  expressed  them — certainly  not  with 
regard  to  those  gentlemen  with  whom  I  have  been 
associated  in  public  life,  and  to  whom  I  am  per- 
sonally known.  My  opinions  upon  the  subject 
have  been  well  understood  by  them.  I  avowed 
them  in  1848,  when  I  had  the  high  satisfaction  of 


being  beaten  for  Governor  in  the  State  of  Ohio. 
Upon  the  Western  Reserve,  the  hot-bed  of  aboli- 
tionism— that  section  of  my  native  State  where 
the  sentiments  avowed  by  the  Senator  from  Mas- 
sachusetts will  be  appreciated — there  I  told  his 
Abolition  friends  that  if  I  were  elected  by  two 
votes,  and  ascertained  that  two  abolitionists  had 
voted  for  me,  I  would  resign  the  office  and  go 
home.  You  may  infer  from  that,  sir,  what  my 
sentiments  have  been  toward  the  Abolitionists. 
And  now,  sir,  let  me  say  in  conclusion,  that  I  am 
content  with  the  Constitution  as  it  is.  It  has 
made  us  a  great  and  prosperous  nation — a  happy 
and  free  people — contented  at  home,  respected 
abroad.  I  desire  to  devote  all  the  energies  of  my 
soul  to  its  perpetuity;  but  I  cannot  see  how  it  can 
be  perpetuated  except  by  securing  to  each  State  the 
undisturbed  enjoyment  of  its  constitutional  rights. 


RI 


LL. 


TUESDAY,  August  24,  1852. 

The  River  and  Harbor  Bill  being  under  consid- 
eration— 

Mr.  WELLER  said ;  I  desire  to  say  a  word  or 
two  before  the  question  is  taken.  I  know  that 
Senators  are  exceedingly  anxious  to  vote,  and  I 
shall  not  detain  them  long.  I  merely  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  stating  my  position  in  as  few  words  as 
possible.  I  have  never  been  very  friendly  to  this 
system  of  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal 
Government,  even  as  advocated  by  a  considerable 
portion  of  my  political  friends.  There  are  Sen- 
ators on  this  floor  much  more  latitudinous  in  their 
construction  of  the  Federal  Constitution  than  I 
am.  When  I  was  a  Representative  in  the  other 
branch  of  Congress,  I  felt  myself  bound  by  con- 
victions of  duty  to  vote  uniformly  against  appro- 
priations to  improvements  which  may  be  regarded 
as  local  in  their  character.  I  have  seen  nothing 
to  induce  me  to  change  the  opinion  which  I  then 
entertained*  but  on  the  contrary,  the  experience 
of  the  past  few  years  has  demonstrated  satisfacto- 
rily to  my  mind  that  in  order  to  preserve  the  peace 
and  quiet  of  this  Union,  aside  from  constitutional 
obligations,  it  is  of  the  last  importance  that  this 
question  of  internal  improvement  should  be  taken 
out  of  the  arena  of  Federal  politics.  If  I  had  been 
here,  therefore,  on  yesterday,  I  should  have  voted 
for  the  proposition  introduced  by  my  friend  from 
Illinois,  [Mr.  DOUGLAS,]  for  I  hold  that  man  a 
public  benefactor  who  takes  out  of  the  arena  of 
Federal  politics  any  one  of  those  questions  which 
are  calculated  in  their  nature  to  divide  and  distract 
the  people.  He  who  can  diminish  the  number  of 
questions  upon  which  the  States  are  divided,  is 
entitled  to  the  thanks  of  every  well-wisher  of  the 
Republic.  A  policy  which  prevents  as  much  as 
possible  the  States  from  being  brought  in  collision 
with  each  other  commands  my  support. 

Sir,  this  question  above  all  others,*in  my  judg- 
ment, is  calculated  to  disturb  the  peace  and  har- 
mony of  the  States.  Just  so  long  as  the  General 
Government  exercises  the  power  of  carrying  on  a 
system  of  internal  improvements  in  the  States  by 
appropriations  from  the  Federal  Treasury,  just  so 
long  must  there  be  a  struggle  between  the  States 
as  to  the  amount  of  money  which  they  shall  re- 
ceive. You  make  the  States  the  mere  stipendiaries 
of  the  Federal  Government.  We  have  seen, 
during  the  progress  of  this  bill  through  the  Senate, 


6 


one  Senator  reproaching  another  for  having  ob- 
tained for  his  State  more  than  its  proper  propor- 
tion of  Federal  plunder !  Such  a  contest  is  the 
necessary  result  of  the  system.  The  smaller 
States  may  contribute  more  than  their  share  to  the 
Federal  Treasury,  but  the  larger  ones  will  take 
care  to  use  their  numbers  in  the  other  branch  of 
Congress  to  appropriate  it  within  their  own  limits. 
In  other  words,  you  may  find  California  exceed- 
ingly useful  in  replenishing  your  Treasury  by  con- 
tributing more  than  $3,000,000  per  year,  but  when 
the  "grabbing"  comes  for  internal  improvements, 
the  great  States  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Ohio,  will  take  care  to  demand  the  lion's  share. 
In  this  way  the  people  of  the  small  States,  through 
their  commerce,  may  be  taxed,  and  thus  compelled 
to  carry  on  a  system  of  internal  improvements 
within  the  limits  of  the  larger  ones.  This,  in  my 
opinion,  is  calculated  to  engender  bad  feeling,  and 
so  lessen  the  affection  which  ought  to  exist  amongst 
the  several  members  of  this  Confederacy.  It  would, 
perhaps,  be  impossible  to  adopt  any  system  which 
would  not  operate  unjustly  upon  some  portions  of 
the  Republic.  This  must  lead  to  dissensions  diffi- 
cult to  be  reconciled — to  quarrels  disastrous  in 
their  results. 

Sir,  this  is  inevitable  under  that  system.  If  the 
General  Government  is  to  engage  in  a  system  of 
internal  improvements  of  a  local  character,  you 
bring  the  States  directly  in  conflict  with  each  other; 
you  produce  bitterness  of  feeling,  which,  in  the 
end,  must,  as  1  have  already  said,  alienate  them 
from  each  other.  This  I  hold  to  be  the  necessary 
result.  How  long  do  you  suppose  the  Govern- 
ment will  stand  after  the  States  have  lost  all  affec- 
tion for  each  other  ?  Destroy  that  bond  of  love, 
of  sympathy,  which  now  binds  them  together, 
and  the  Union  will  soon  cease  to  exist.  A  scram- 
ble for  the  public  money  will  soon  place  the  States 
in  antagonism  to  each  other. 

With  that  party  to  which  I  belong,  or  at  least 
that  portion  of  the  Democratic  partytwho  believe 
in  extending  our  institutions  until  they  have  cov- 
ered the  whole  American  continent,  it  is  of  the 
last  importance  that  we  should  confine  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  the  few  powers  that  have  been 
delegated  to  it  by  the  Constitution.  Sir,  at  an 
early  age  in  the  history  of  this  Republic,  it  was 
supposed  that,  however  well  adapted  our  form  of 
government  was  to  the  control  of  a  small  portion  of 
territory,  yet  by  extending  its  limits  and  bringing 
into  the  Union  an tagonistical States,  or  atall  events, 
States  whose  interests  were,  to  some  extent,  in 
conflict  with  each  other,  you  would  endanger  the 
Government  and  weaken  the  bond  that  bound  the 
States  together.  If  thedoctrine  of  the  Whig  party 
were  carried  out,  it  would  be  dangerous ,  I  grant  you , 
to  enlarge  the  number  of  States ;  but,  under  the  Dem- 
ocraticdoctrine,ifyou  confine  the  General  Govern- 
mentto  the  few  and  simple  powers  given  to  it  by  the 
Constitution ,  and  if  you  take  care  that  every  State 
in  the  Union  studiously  abstains  from  intermeddling 
with  the  affairs^  of  their  neighbors,  you  may  go  on 
and  increase  the  number  of  States  until  you  have 
covered  the  whole  American  continent,  and  the 
Union  will  be  stronger  then  than  it  is  now.  But 
the  salvation  of  the  whole  depends  upon  this. 
Therefore,  if  I  believed  in  this  extended  system 
of  internal  improvements  by  the  General  Govern- 
ment within  the  States,  I  should  deprecate  the  ex- 
tension of  our  territory,  because,  when  you  bring 


those  States  together  with  conflicting  interests,  it 
will  be  almost  impossible  to  adopt  a  system  of 
improvements  which  shall  do  justice  to  each,  and 
thus  preserve  the  peace  and  the  harmony  of  the 
whole.  But,  sir,  if  you  leave  this  question  to  the 
States,  if  you  give  them,  as  was  proposed  by 
my  friend  from  Illinois,  power  to  levy  tonnage 
duties  for  the  purpose  of  improving  their  harbors 
and  navigable  rivers  within  their  limits,  you  would 
take  away  from  the  Federal  Government  one  of 
those  questions  which,  in  my  judgment,  more  than 
any  other,  is  calculated  to  divide  and  distract  the 
people  of  this  Union. 

It  was  for  that  reason  that  I  was  anxious  to  have 
recorded  my  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  Sena- 
tor from  Illinois.  There  are  many  States  in  this 
Union  that  have  no  harbors,  no  navigable  rivers, 
and  it  is  somewhat  difficult  to  explain  to  the  Rep- 
resentatives of  those  States  how  it  is  that  they  are 
directly  interested  in  the  improvement  of  harbors 
and  of  rivers  within  the  limits  of  other  States. 
For  instance,  it  is  a  very  difficult  matter  to  satisfy 
my  friend  from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  BUTLER]  that 
it  is  right  to  take  a  portion  of  the  Federal  funds 
which  belong  to  his  people,  and  appropriate  them 
to  the  improvement  of  a  harbor  or  river  in  the 
State  of  Ohio.  It  is  wrong  in  principle.  I  am, 
however,  in  favor  of  those  improvements  which 
are  of  a  general  and  national  character,  and  calcu- 
lated, in  their  nature,  to  bind  the  States  more 
closely  together.  The  construction  of  a  great  na- 
tional railroad,  connecting  the  Atlantic  with  our 
Pacific  possessions,  whilst  it  would  be  clearly 
within  the  powers  granted  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, would  bring  the  remote  States  into  more  inti- 
mate connection  with  the  central  States,  and  thus 
lay  a  permanent  foundation  for  the  prosperity  and 
happiness  of  the  people.  I  trust  the  day  is  not 
far  distant  when  this  important  national  work  will 
be  undertaken  and  completed  by  the  Government. 

But  whenever  the  improvement  is  within  the 
limits  of  a  single  State,  or  wherever  the  commerce 
to  be  affected  is  local  in  its  character,  I  do  not  con- 
sider that  of  such  national  importance  as  to  justify 
Congress  in  appropriating  the  Federal  funds  to  it. 
It  is  better,  therefore,  in  every  view  of  the  case, 
to  leave  this  question  to  the  States;  and  I  trust  I 
shall  live  to  see  the  day  when  the  principle  as- 
serted in  the  amendment  introduced  on  yesterday 
by  my  friend  from  Illinois,  shall  be  the  policy  of 
this  Government.  But  if  you  are  to  carry  on  this 
system  of  internal  improvements,  if  it  is  to  be  the 
settled  policy  of  this  Government,  then,  for  one, 
I  should  be  compelled  to  abandon  a  favorite  pol- 
icy— I  mean  the  doctrine  of  extending  the  limits 
of  this  Union;  for  I  should  be  afraid  to  increase 
the  number  of  States  where  such  a  system  was 
recognized  by  the  Government.  There  are  already 
sufficient  elements  of  discord  to  endanger  our  safety, 
and  if  this  policy,  which  must  necessarily  be  par- 
tial in  its  operations,  were  introduced,  it  would  be 
difficult,  indeed,  to  preserve  the  Union.  In  such 
an  event,  the  larger  the  number  of  States  the  more 
difficult  it  would  be  to  reconcile  conflicting  inter- 
ests and  maintain  the  Union.  As  an  extensionist, 
as  a  Union  man,  I  am  opposed  to  this  policy. 

I  shall,  without  the  slightest  hesitation,  vote 
against  this  bill.  It  is  true  it  makes  a  small  ap- 
propriation to  the  improvement  of  a  harbor  in  the 
State  from  which  I  come;  but  the  fact  cannot  be 
concealed  that  this  bill  is  the  entering  wedge  to  a 


system  of  local  improvements  which,  if  pursued, 
must  bankrupt  the  Treasury,  array  the  States 
against  each  other,  and  ultimately  divide  the 
Union.  This  bill  makes  appropriations  to  works 
of  internal  improvements  which  are,  in  my  judg- 
ment, exclusively  local  in  their  character,  and 
which  are  not  calculated  to  advance  the  general 
interests  of  the  people. 

The  power  of  Congress  to  improve  harbors,  or 
to  prosecute  a  national  work  which  in  its  nature 
is  calculated  to  bring  distant  States  more  closely 
together,  and  thus  strengthen  the  ligaments  which 
bind  them  into  one  Union,  is  undeniable.  So 
long  as  the  power  is  confined  to  these  general  and 
national  works,  the  most  beneficial  results  may  be 
anticipated;  but  when  it  is  carried  within  the  limits 
of  a  State  by  the  Federal  Government,  and  thus 
extended  to  local  improvements,  it  must  be  disas- 
trous. 

If  you  will  authorize  the  State  of  California  to 
impose  tonnage  duties  upon  all  vessels  coming  into 
her  harbors  or  navigating  her  rivers,  we  would 
soon  have  all  we  desire.  With  the  duties  thus 
collected,  we  could  remove  all  the  obstructions  in 
our  navigable  rivers,  and  make  our  harbors  what 
the  commerce  of  the  country  demands.  Under 
such  a  system,  those  who  use  your  harbors  and 
rivers  would  pay  for  their  improvement.  Where 
the  commerce  of  the  country  required  harbors, 
there  the  best  would  be  found;  and  millions  would 
not — as  has  been  the  case — be  expended  in  efforts 
to  make  them  where  nature  never  intended  there 
should  be  any. 

LAND  CLAIMS  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
MONDAY,  August  2,  1852. 

The  Bill  to  ascertain  and  settle  Private  Land 
Claims  in  California,  being  before  the  Senate,  in 
reply  to  some  remarks  of  Mr.  GWIN, 

Mr.  WELLER  said:  As  my  colleague  has 
given  notice  that  he  does  not  intend  to  press  the 
consideration  of  this  bill  to-day,  1  will  content 
myself  on  this  occasion  by  saying  that  I  regret 
very  much  that  I  am  not  able  to  bring  my  mind 
to  the  conclusion  that  this  bill  is  calculated  to  ad- 
vance the  real  interests  of  the  people  of  California. 
1  cannot  get  rid  of  the  opinion  that  the  first  section 
of  the  bill  conflicts  with  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe 
Hidalgo.  I  cannot  divest  my  mind,  I  say,  of  that 
impression,  because,  if  these  claims  which  may  be 
presented  before  the  land  commissioners  are  valid, 
they  should  be  confirmed.  In  the  decision  of 
that  question — the  question  of  the  validity  of  the 
claims — the  board  must  be  governed  by  the  rules 
laid  down  by  the  act  of  Congress  passed  on  the  3d 
March,  1851.  This  requires  that  the  board  shall 
be  governed  by  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo, 
by  the  law  of  nations,  together  with  the  usages 
and  customs  formerly  existing  under  the  Spanish 
and  Mexican  Governments,  and  by  the  principles 
of  justice  and  equity.  I  can  readi'ly  imagine  that 
a  claim  may  be  presented  to  the  board  of  com- 
missioners, which  is  incomplete,  in  which  the 
grantee  may  not  have  performed  all  the  require- 
ments of  the  Spanish  and  Mexican  laws;  but  that 
person  may  have  a  just  and  equitable  title  through 
the  occupation,  improvement,  and  enjoyment  of 
that  which  is  covered  by  the  original  grant.  I 
believe  that  after  a  grant  has  been  made  to  any 
person — no  matter  what  may  be  the  extent  of  that 


grant — if  he  has  taken  possession  in  good  faith, 
and  enjoyed,  improved, and  occupied  it,  thus  sub- 
stantially complying  with  the  terms  of  the  grant, 
he  is  entitled  to  have  it  confirmed.  The  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  should  do  what  justice 
and  honesty  would  have  required  from  the  Mexi- 
can Government.  If  that  Government,  under 
the  usages  and  customs  which  prevailed,  would 
have  been  required  to  secure  the  land  to  the 
grantee,  then  our  Government  is  bound  to  respect 
it.  The  extent  of  the  grant  cannot  affect  the  ques- 
tion. 

I  need  not  say  that  I  believe  it  would  be  mani- 
festly unwise  for  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  make  large  grants  of  the  public  domain 
to  individuals.  I  am  entirely  opposed  to  that 
policy,  and  the  records  of  the  past  will  show,  so 
far  as  I  have  been  connected  with  public  affairs, 
that  no  one  has  been  more  favorable  to  those  meas- 
ures which  would  tend  to  the  benefit  of  the  actual 
settlers  than  I  have.  My  opinions  were  fully  ex- 
pressed more  than  eleven  years  ago,  on  that  sub- 
ject, in  the  House  of  Representatives,  of  which 
I  was  then  a  member. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  a  speech  made 
by  me  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  February 
3,  1841,  (Congressional  Appendix,  vol.  9,  page 
145r) 

"  There  is  another  subject  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  BELL,]  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  refer. 
I  allude  to  the  '  prospective  preemption  law,'  which  I  re- 
joice to  learn  was  passed  by  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
Senate  on  yesterday,  and  is  now  in  this  House  for  its  ac- 
tion. It  has  been  denounced  here  as  a  '  humbug,  designed 
to  catch  votes,'  and  gentlemen  have  volunteered  the  asser- 
tion that  we  did  not  desire  its  passage.  Now,  sir,  what  is 
this  bill  ?  It  is  simply  a  proposition  to  give  the  settler  upon 
the  public  lands  the  right  of  preemption,  and  differs  only 
from  the  law  heretofore  passed  in  the  fact  that  it  is  pros- 
pective in  Its  operation.  It  does  not  propose  to  give  the 
public  domain  to  the  settler,  but  to  allow  him  to  take  that 
portion  on  which  he  has  settled  and  built  a  log  cabin  at  the 
Government  price,  within  a  limited  period.  I  lisa  measure 
for  the  benefit  of  the  poor  man— for  the  humble  tenants  of 
the  log  cabins ;  for  those  who  may  be  driven  by  poverty 
from  the  older  States,  and  who  may  go  with  no  bank-bills 
perhaps  in  their  pockets,  but  with  strong  arms  and  honest 
hearts  to  hunt  for  themselves  and  their  families  a  home  in 
the  far  West.  Sir,  if  this  was  a  measure  for  the  advance- 
ment of  the  pecuniary  interest  of  speculators  or  bankers,  it 
would  not  meet  with  the  opposition  it  does  from  Whig  gen- 
tlemen. Although  loud  in  their  professions  of  attachment 
to  the  poor  man  when  office  is  to  be  obtained,  in  their  legis- 
lation little  regard  is  paid  to  their  interests.  Gentlemen 
have  denounced  these  settlers  as  <  lawless  squatters,'  and. 
'  land  pirates,'  and  told  us  that  the  United  States  marshal 
ought  to  be  sent  with  a  military  force  to  dispossess  them. 
Sir,  if  a  banker  (as  is  the  case  every  day)  swindles  the 
community  out  of  millions,  the  act  goes  unwhipped  of  jus- 
tice ;  but  if  a  poor  man  settles  down  upon  the  public  land, 
and  endeavors  by  his  industry  and  frugality  to  procure  a 
livelihood  for  his  children,  you  would  raise  a  military  force 
to  turn  him  off  and  deprive  him  of  the  little  improvement 
he  had  made.  This  may  be  Whig  policy,  and  Whig  jus- 
tice ;  but  I  venture  the  assertion,  the  American  people  are 
not  prepared  for  such  doctrine.  In  the  estimation  of  these 
Whig  orators,  to  cut  down  a  few  trees  in  a  dense  and  almost 
unbroken  forest  belonging  to  the  Government,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cultivating  a  few  acres  of  corn,  is  a  most  heinous 
offense ;  whilst  they  suffer  the  bankers  to  violate  the  laws, 
make  sport  of  their  legislation,  acquire  wealth  by  their  vil- 
lainies, and  ride  in  proud  triumph  over  the  ruin  and  desola- 
tion of  the  laboring  man.  Sir,  there  is  a  point  beyond  which 
forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue  ;  and  the  time  will  come 
when  this  great  money  power,  which  is  eating  out  the  sub- 
stance of  the  people,  must  be  checked  by  legislation,  or  the 
land  will  be  deluged  in  blood.  The  day  of  retribution  is  at 
hand,  and  wo  be  to  that  legislator  who  seeks  to  aggrandize 
the  few  by  the  oppression  of  the  many. 

"  The  preemption  bill  is  a  favorite  measure  with  me,  and 
enlists  all  the  sympathies  of  my  nature.  It  affords  me  the 
most  sincere  pleasure  to  do  all  in  niy  power  to  advance  the 


' 

. 


8 


interests  of  the  hardy  and  enterprising  emigrant,  who, 
abandoning  the  home  of  his  fathers,  the  worn-out,  worm- 
eaten  land  of  his  nativity,  has  taken  up  his  abode  in  the  rich 
valleys  of  the  far  West.  Sir,  I  would  rather  be  recognized 
as  the  champion  of  such  men  than  hold  the  highest  office 
within  the  gift  of  my  country.  Let  these  men  have  the  en- 
couragement of  the  Government — the  promise  that  within  a 
limited  period  they  shall  be  permitted,  at  the  present  price, 
to  purchase  the  land  on  which  they  reside  ;  and  with  indus- 
try and  enterprise,  the  rude  cabin  will  soon  give  way  19  the 
comfortable  dwelling,  and  the  '  wilderness  be  made  to 
bloom  and  blossom  as  the  rose.'  By  the  passage  of  this  act, 
many  in  the  old  States  of  this  Union,  who  now  feel  from 
day  to  day  the  cutting  lash  of  penury  and  want,  and  who 
have  families  growing  up  around  them  without  the  ability 
to  supply  them  with  even  the  necessaries  of  life,  would 
emigrate  to  the  West,  settle  down  on  your  lands,  and  soon 
surround  themselves  with  all  the  comforts  of  life.  In  this 
way  you  would  not  only  contribute  to  their  happiness,  but 
in  making  them  the  owners  of  the  soil,  increase  and 
strengthen  their  attachment  to  the  Union,  and  thus  lay  the 
foundation  for  the  permanent  prosperity  of  the  country 
broad  and  deep  in  the  affections  of  the  people.  I  would 
much  rather,  for  my  own  part,  make  a  gift  of  the  public  do- 
main to  actual  bona  fide  settlers  who  would  improve  the 
country,  than  to  see  it  falling  at  the  Government  price  into 
the  hands  of  speculators." 

But  that  policy  which  would  be  unwise  and  im- 
politic in  the  present  condition  of  the  affairs  of 
this  Government,  might  have  been  both  wise  and 
politic  in  California  when  under  the  dominion  of 
Spain.  It  was  a  very  difficult  thing  to  settle  that 
country  at  that  time,  as  well  as  when  under  the 
government  of  Mexico;  and  it  might  be  necessary 
to  the  cultivation  of  these  lands  that  large  grants 
should  be  made,  for  they  were  almost  worthless, 
and  used  chiefly  for  pastoral  or  grazing  purposes. 
Such  a  policy,  however  necessary  or  proper  then, 
would,  beyond  all  question,  be  unwise  and  im- 
politic now.  The  wants  and  necessities  of  our 
people  demand  an  entirely  different  policy,  as  we 
are  desirous  to  have  as  many  landholders  as  pos- 
sible. 

By  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  we  agreed 
to  see  that  the  people  were  protected  in  the  enjoy- 
ment of  all  their  just  rights.  We  have  undertaken, 
by  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hidalgo, 
to  say  that  the  people  in  California  shall  be  pro- 
tected in  the  free  enjoyment  of  their  legal  and 
equitable  rights;  that  the  title  of  their  property 
shall  not  be  disturbed;  in  other  words,  that  prop- 
erty which  they  fairly  and  justly  held  under 
Mexico,  should  be  respected  by  us. 

The  first  provision  of  the  bill  which  my  col- 
league has  submitted,  is,  that  although  the  title 
may  be  confirmed,  if  there  be  a  defect  or  any 
informality  in  that  title,  although  the  Board  of 
Commissioners  may  have  decided  in  favor  of  it, 
upon  the  principles  of  equity,  yet  if  the  settler 
has  occupied  and  improved  eighty  acres,  he -shall 
hold  it;  and  the  grantee  shall  have  a  floating 
title  given  him  to  eighty  acres  elsewhere.  I  think 
this  would  violate  the  spirit,  if  not  the  letter  of 
that  treaty  which  we  made  with  Mexico.  Now, 
I  think  if  these  grants  are  confirmed,  the  grantee 
is  entitled  to  the  possession  of  the  particular  land 
which  is  covered  by  that  title.  There  may  be 
reasons  why  the  original  grant  would  be  desired; 
for  we  all  know  that  we  attach  oftentimes  a  ficti- 
tious value  to  property  because  of  its  location ,  its41 
natural  position,  or  simply  because  it  suits  us.  If 
these  grants  have  been  made  in  good  faith  by  the 
proper  authority,  and  have  been  occupied  and  en- 
joyed by  the  proprietor,  although  he  may  not  have 
complied  with  all  the  technical  provisions  of  the 
law,  I  hold  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government 


to  protect  him  in  his  right  to  the  particular  land 
which  is  covered  by  his  title. 

There  is  the  point  in  regard  to  which  my  col- 
league and  myself  differ.  There  may  be,  and 
probably  there  are,  fraudulent  grants  in  that  coun- 
try. There  are  many  grants,  I  know,  in  Califor- 
nia, the  boundaries  of  which  are  indefinite,  unde- 
fined, and  uncertain;  and  wherever  a  discretion  is 
left  to  be  exercised  in  adjusting  the  boundaries,  I 
would  have  that  discretion  so  exercised  as  to  bring 
down  the  grants  to  the  very  smallest  portion,  act- 
ing upon  the  principle  that  it  is  against  the  public 
policy  that  land  should  be  held  in  large  tracts. 

But  if  the  title  be  a  good  one,  you  are  under  the 
highest  of  all  obligations  of  a  political  character, 
the  plighted  faith  of  the  Government,  to  confirm  it. 
If  it  be  fraudulent,  or  tinctured  with  fraud,  unjust, 
or  of  a  doubtful  character,  it  should  be  rejected. 
A  Government,  no  more  than  an  individual,  can 
maintain  its  character  for  integrity  by  taking  ad- 
vantage of  a  mere  technical  defect  in  a  title. 

There  are  titles  which  will  be  found  incomplete 
in  some  particulars.  If  there  are  substantial  de- 
fects the  title  must  be  rejected.  In  regard  to  the 
grant  made  in  the  Suisun  valley,  to  which  my 
colleague  has  referred,  I  have  only  a  remark  to 
make.  There  are  between  two  and  three  hundred 
settlers  there,  and  I  believe  the  grant  contains 
some  twenty-four  thousand  acres,  a  considerable 
portion  of  which  has  been  settled  upon,  and  they 
have  had  the  undisturbed  enjoyment  of  all  the 
fruits  of  that  rich  and  valuable  land  for  two  years. 
But  I  will  not  discuss  the  title  to  this  grant,  for 
the  reason  that  I  am  in  the  position  of  counsel 
myself  for  the  settlers,  and  must,  as  such,  resist 
in  the  courts  the  confirmation  of  it.  It  is  not  be- 
coming* in  me,  therefore,  to  express  my  opinion  as 
to  the  legality  or  validity  of  that  title.  But  if  it  be 
a  good  title,  made  by  competent  authority,  and 
he  grantee  took  possession  and  improved  in  good 
faith,  and  has  complied  with  all  the  substantial 
requisitions  of  the  law,  that  board  must  con- 
firm it.  But  what  will  be  his  position  under  this 
bill  if  his  title  should  be  confirmed  ?  He  will  find 
all  the  land  susceptible  of  cultivation  in  the  occu- 
pancy of  other  persons,  and  he  must  take  his  cer- 
tificate for  twenty-four  thousand  acres,  (if  that  be 
the  amount  of  the  grant,)  and  locate  it  upon  the 
public  domain.  Could  he  find  land  as  rich  and 
valuable  unoccupied  elsewhere  in  that  State?  1 
am  confident  he  could  not.  Would  this  be  a  sub- 
stantial compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  treaty, 
"to  maintain  and  protect  him  in  the  free  enjoy- 
ment of  his  property?"  I  think  not.  To  compel 
him  to  locate  lands  elsewhere  than  the  place  cov- 
ered by  his  grant  would,  in  my  judgment,  be  a 
violation  of  our  treaty  obligations.  It  would  be  a 
breach  of  plighted  faith. 

This  is  the  first  time  I  have  been  compelled, 
from  a  sense  of  duty,  to  differ  with  my  colleague, 
whose  time  and  energies  have  been  devoted  to  our 
State.  There  is  much,  very  much,  in  the  argu- 
ment of  my  colleague  which  receives  my  cordial 
assent.  I  know  the  difficulties  under  which  we 
labor  in  that  country,  and  it  is  natural  that  we 
should  sometimes  be  unable  to  see  alike  in  respect 
to  the  best  method  of  meeting  those  difficulties. 
But  I  do  not  wish  to  discuss  this  subject  unless  it 
should  be  pressed  upon  the  Senate.  For  the  res-p 
ent  I  only  desire  to  put  myself  right  before  uor 
common  constituency. 


Printed  at  the  Congressional  Globe  Office. 


